Untrue. Aston Martin lost 2 positions because they got caught behind the wrong safety car, just for stopping at a different time to Porsche
There are winners and losers with the safety cars. Have you checked to make sure that throught all safety car periods Aston didn't get an advantage later i.e. were able to make up the gap by being better placed on another safety car? The hope is over the course of 24 hours any advantage/disadvantage would even itself out. As Cosi says, over an 8.5 mile circuit it would take too long and be dangerous for cars to be travelling at different speeds. Delta times would not work either again due to the length of the circuit and the different classes that race. A delta time for an LMP1 would be flat chat for a GT class car
I've only really ever casually watched Le Man but does the second safety car go at a pace which means it slowly catches up with the back of the first safety car pack? Some safety car periods were 20+ minutes so in that time I think they could go at a safe speed whilst catching up with the front pack. Sad news to hear of the fatality, its a sign of the much safer motorsport world we live in that when we saw the crash we thought nothing of it. The car looked in pretty good shape after the crash so I can only assume the outcome was due to debris or G-force.
Given that your complaint was that this system is too different from other SC systems, and this is the F1 forum, do you not acknowledge that the same occurs in F1 with the single safety car?
Untrue? Hmm… that's quite a statement, Crow! In a moment, I hope that you'll think this depends upon one's perspective. For instance, did any car lose a whole lap? Or were the losses (and 'lucky dog' gains) kept far smaller? Please look at the big picture. The only way to eliminate "winners and losers", as ASC puts it, is to have a safety car for every single competitor , which instantly materialises in front of each, perfectly regulating its pace relative to all others. Then, at the end of this period, every Safety Car would have to instantly dematerialise! Sadly, we do not live in a perfect world*, but would you not now agree with the idea of 'the more, the merrier' – especially for long circuits? If still in doubt, compare Aston's unfortunate loss of two places with what might, with just one SC, have been a whole lap… Additionally, I would like to emphasise the differences between Endurance racing and say, F1; the former having many classes of car (and driver!), and far more cars in total (56 at Le Mans this year), all circulating at the same time – with very significant differences in performance. Conversely, Green Flag restarts are far safer when all competitors have similar performance. Also, imagine how it would feel to fall just the wrong side of a single SC on an 8.5 mile circuit while the guy you were chasing just made it past the SC and vanishes into the distance, only to come up 400-500 metres behind you on track but more than 8 miles ahead in the race! If I may say so, perhaps you were previously demonstrating a partisan view for the Aston Martin which, on this occasion, suffered a small loss? Thanks, ASC. As you say, Safety Cars will always create "winners and losers". All we can do is to limit the gains and losses. No rule can ever be 'perfect' because it seeks to define a hard division across what is really a fuzzy transition from one state to another. The Safety Cars do not close up on each other, BLS. Deployed from pit-lane at three appropriate intervals, the three Safety Cars (designated 'A', 'B' and 'C') circulate at different points on the track. Once each 'group' has formed an orderly queue behind its SC, each runs to the same delta and there is no 'wave by'. Thus, the gaps between them are roughly maintained until racing re-commences, limiting relative gains or losses to only one third of a lap (approximately). Also, I agree with your last sentence. Personally I think it was the severity of the impact, rather than debris or other, which cost the affable Dane his life… * please log in to view this image * - - -o0o- - - *Some day, in a future long after I'm gone, I expect the Safety Car situation to be partly replaced by electronics which automatically cut every car's performance at the drop of a switch.
They already have this at kart tracks, nothing more irritating than your revs suddenly dropping for no reason. It's a good system though, far safer and fairer than safety cars and yellow flags.
There's an interesting analysis here on why racing drivers die in accidents, from a medical perspective. I have to agree with their point of finding a new paint for track markings. Everyone knows they're incredibly slippery when wet, but human error will occasionally put drivers onto them, and then frequently into walls/barriers. It really can't be that difficult to find a different paint that offers comparable grip to the tarmac, or even to just use a different coloured tarmac.
A fan's view of the Simonsen accident is here: [video=youtube;nIVpzKqCLBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nIVpzKqCLBE[/video] Looks like he was avoiding an accident rather than losing control under acceleration.
I wonder if they've considered that gravel might actually be safer than painted lines with run offs when it rains. You often get standing water on the run off areas which could cause aquaplaning and the lines when wet can cause spins. The thing it, a driver would lift if they ran on the kerb in the wet, but they'd probably keep their foot in it if they crossed a painted line. There's no doubt gravel is better from a racing perspective as it punishes mistakes, and I don't think it's necessarily less safe than tarmac run offs. The argument against I think is the car bedding in upside down, but to my knowledge no one's ever suffered an injury that way.
The argument against gravel is threefold: It reduces or completely removing a driver's ability to influence an unfolding situation, as is the case with an unpredictable surface or one which does not allow driver inputs to rescue the situation. The secondary argument is the possibility of causing something to 'dig', flicking the car airborne and/or into a roll before it has slowed significantly. It takes only a slight 'sideways' attitude with a fast car as it parts company with the black stuff, or some unevenness in the top layer of gravel, to increase the chance of this. Gravel is very likely to leave a stricken car and its driver in a precarious situation, powerless to escape the scene of someone else's misadventure. In turn, this makes a Safety Car far more likely which won't enamour the fan-base either! So, despite the obvious advantage to drivers whose chances of continuing to race are vastly improved, it is the increased safety which paved the way (sic) for boring, forgiving, tarmac. My personal preference is for alternating high-friction surfaces, such as seen at Paul Ricard, which reduce dangers whilst at the same time severely punishing tyres, but most circuits cannot hope to employ such an ideal compromise because they don't have such an abundance of space.
Is it just me or does anyone else wish it was just road cars, rather than the prototypes being allowed back in. I remember when they went to GT only allowed , I think about 10 years back , maybe longer, and you saw all these Macleren F1's F40's etc racing,proper super cars. Andwhy has no one run a veyron at Le Man's?
They have a historic Le Mans but I to would be up for a production car Le Mans Maybe manufacturers would be afraid of seeing cars available to buy beaten by their rivals (as opposed to souped up versions).
Le Mans is all about proper sports cars and one-off specials. The Group C days were some of Le Mans best. Porsche, Jaguar & Sauber-Mercedes all having a crack at each other. The early/mid 70's were also spectacular, or be it without the safety of the modern day. IMHO I think the spectacle would be reduced if it were just GT style cars.
Went to Le Man in 87, group C cars, I think Rothmans Porshe won, driven by the old British stalwart Bell, he never seems to look any older does he, even has the same bloody hairstyle, Walkinshaws Jaguar finished 5th driven by yet another young veteran American Eddie Cheever, I spotted both these two at Goodwood a couple of years ago and they both looked very well preserved, amazing. Le Man, just GO it's classic. Goodwood is also worth a visit, just booked tickets for the whole weekend, racing cars, bikes, Spitfire's and ladies in nylons and high heels, can't beat it guys
Maybe we should all start supporting Dressage, perhaps then I would not mind almost coming off my bike whilst swiftly negotiating a corner complicated further by huge pile of horse **** strategically placed and left by some inconsiderate type.
Agreed, also it's worth mentioning that last time they went GT only, certain manufacturers (i'm looking at you Mercedes, Porsche and Toyota) released special one off "road" cars just to make their racing cars legal, thus sort of cheating. If this is a road car, then i'm a monkey's uncle. please log in to view this image
